<draft>

Cottrell

Lacock

Oct 31. /57

Y^r l^r of yest^y’s date h^s come t. hand

It app^rs t me y^t in an agreem^t of this nat^re a min^l lease of this kind y^e am^t of royalty is y^e most import^t point ^{a point of ye greatst consqnce} to the lessor or landlord, but that it can only be a secondary consideratⁿ for the lessee, _^^indeed of less consq^ce to him than _^^many other circ^ces attend^g the affair _{wch attend the} undertak^g of such la extens^ve oper^ns.

A perman^t rise of 2^s a ton in y^e sell^g price of ore in Staff^dsh., or a perman^t fall of 2^s a ton in the price _cost of conveying the ore thither, w^d be as it seems to me, a considerⁿ of more import^ce than y^e royalty payable to y^e landowner

And such a rise in price may very well occur _^^{before long}. Iron has may return any day to its former high price, and that w^d cause a correspond^g rise in the value of ironstone – in w^ch advantage y^e landowner w^d not particip^te, b^g held to a fix^d royalty

As it app^rs _^^{however yt Messrs S & Co} that y wish me to make a proposal for the _{since you wish me} to propose some terms for the work^g of the ore beds, rather than make

As it app^rs y^t y wish me to make some def^te proposal on y^e subj^t _^^{of workg these iron grounds} I have endeav^d to <illegible deletion> y^e matter on fair grounds arrive at fair conclus^ns both with reg^d to landl^d & ten^t.

1) _^^{As to ye extent of ye works} It app^rs to me that the lessee ought to guarantee the qu^y to undertake to raise at least 20,000 tons of ore per ann. Except during ^for the 1^st year w^ch _^^{for his convence} w^d be left free from such stipulⁿ. Defer

(2). The distinctⁿ of the ore found here into 3 ^ki qualities kinds or species proposed by you in a former letter seems suff^ly correct, and agrees fully well _^^enough with my own observⁿ – with respect to 2 of these kinds _^^{I thk} the Seend royalty of 1/ per ton may be accepted as _^^a fair offer – The third kind is much super^r & the result of var^s enquir^s w^ch I h^ve made is that it may be worth _^^{in Staffdsh} about 4/ a ton more than the average value of the two infer^r kinds.

Dividing this advant^ge equally betwⁿ landl^d & ten^t – 2^s to each – the royalty due on this kind best kind of ore will be 3/ _{a ton}.

The Assum^g then that the quan of ore are equally abund^t found in equal abund^ce w^ch seems not far f^m y^e truth, the calcⁿ will stand thus

1	ton ore	1st kind	–	at 1 royalty
1	do	2d kind	–	at 1
1	do	3d		at 3

<hand-drawn line>

Total 3 tons – at 5

that is 1 ton – at 1/8

_^^Therefore the conclusⁿ drawn is that 1s 8d w^d be the fair am^t of royalty – to the best of my judgm^t – But our expenditure of – < the?> arithm^c will at any rate shew you that we have endeav^d to make you a fair offer from the data before us

To w^ch I w^{d we} wish to add the foll^g item w^ch I appreh^d y. will h^ve no diff^y in agree^g to.

Item – it is agreed

That if M^r T. or o^r p^sns b^g his lessees sh^d hereafter erect smelt^g f^rnces near y^e Canal, & adjac^t to y^e wharf &c w^ch Mess^rs S. propose to construct, they will engage to supply you with all the _{as much} ore as they may require, on ^at y^e same terms ^{price p. ton} as they have contracted to supply th ore to y^e G W Iron C^y at Seend

<expanded version>

Cottrell

Lacock

October 31. 1857

Your letter of yesterday’s date has come to hand.

It appears me that in an agreement of this nature a mineral lease of this kind the amount of royalty is the most important point a point of the greatest conseqence to the lessor or landlord, but that it can only be a secondary consideration for the lessee, indeed of less consequence to him than many other circumstances attending the affair which attend the undertaking of such labour extensive operations.

A permanent rise of two shillings a ton in the selling price of ore in Staffordshire, or a permanent fall of two shillings a ton in the price cost of conveying the ore thither, would be as it seems to me, a consideration of more importance than the royalty payable to the landowner.

And such a rise in price may very well occur before long. Iron has may return any day to its former high price, and that would cause a corresponding rise in the value of ironstone – in which advantage the landowner would not participate, being held to a fixed royalty

As it appears however that Messrs Sarl & Co that you wish me to make a proposal for the since you wish me to propose some terms for the working of the ore beds, rather than make As it appears that you wish me to make some definite proposal on the subject of working these iron grounds I have endeavoured to <illegible deletion> the matter on fair grounds arrive at fair conclusions both with regard to landlord and tenant.

1) As to the extent of the works, it appears to me that the lessee ought to guarantee the quantity to undertake to raise at least twenty-thousand tons of ore per annum. Except during for the first year which for his convenience would be left free from such stipulation. Defer

(2). The distinction of the ore found here into three kinds qualities kinds or species proposed by you in a former letter seems sufficiently correct, and agrees fully well enough with my own observation – with respect to two of these kinds I think the Seend royalty of one shilling per ton may be accepted as a fair offer – The third kind is much superior and the result of various enquiries which I have made is that it may be worth in Staffordshire about four shillings a ton more than the average value of the two inferior kinds.

Dividing this advantage equally between landlord and tenant – two shillings to each – the royalty due on this kind best kind of ore will be three shillings a ton. The Assuming then that the quantity of ore are equally abundant found in equal abundance which seems not far from the truth, the calculation will stand thus

1 ton ore first kind – at one shilling royalty
1 ton ore second kind – at one shilling royalty
1 ton ore third kind – at three shillings royalty

Total three tons – at five shillings royalty
that is one ton – at one shilling eight pence royalty

Therefore the conclusion drawn is that one shilling eight pence would be the fair amount of royalty – to the best of my judgement – But our expenditure of – the arithmetic will at any rate shew you that we have endeavoured to make you a fair offer from the data before us.

To which I would we wish to add the following item which I apprehend you will have no difficulty in agreeing to.

Item – it is agreed That if M^r Talbot or other persons being his lessees should hereafter erect smelting furnaces near the Canal, and adjacent to the wharf etc. which Mess^rs Sarl ^<1> propose to construct, they will engage to supply you with all the as much ore as they may require, on at the same terms price per ton as they have contracted to supply the ore to the Great Western Iron Company at Seend

---

Notes:

1. Sarl & Company, London.